1 CGHC010266932026 2026:CGHC:35824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3749 of 2026 Order Reserved on 20.07.2026 Order Passed on 13.08.2026 1 – Nitin Singhvi, S/o Late N.C. Singhvi, aged about 64 years, R/o- H.I.G.-03, Sector-03, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 -Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 – Director, Town and Country Planning, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6- Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7- Zone Commissioner, Zone 3, Nagar Palik Nigam, Shanker Nagar, Raipur 8- Executive Engineer, Division-2, Chhattisgarh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, Shanker Nagar, Raipur. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.14 19:37:22 +0530 2 For Respondents No. 3 & 7/Municipal Corporation : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 4 & 8 : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, seeks the indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to act upon the communication/order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Ministry of Housing and Environment Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to take necessary action on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, obtain an enquiry report from the concerned department, and apprise the petitioner of the action taken pursuant thereto. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 To direct the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry and furnish an examination report in compliance of directions made by Housing and Environment Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide communication dated 15.10.2025. 10.2 To direct the respondent authorities to consider petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2025, while conducting the aforementioned enquiry directed by respondent No. 01. 3 10.3 Direct the respondent authorities to communicate the decision taken on the aforesaid directions and representation to the petitioner forthwith; 10.4 Grant any other relief, including costs of the petition, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is R/o Shanker Nagar, Sector 01, Raipur (C.G.). The residential sectors including Sectors 1, 2 & 3 of Shanker Nagar were developed by the Chhattisgarh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board for residential purposes. However, in the aforesaid residential colony, various commercial and semi- commercial activities are being carried out by raising constructions contrary to the permission granted by the concerned authorities. The permission was granted for residential purposes; however, various persons are using the same for commercial purposes. The petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 03.10.2025 before the Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, State of C.G., with a prayer for redressal of his grievance, as in the residential colonies, commercial and semi- commercial activities cannot be allowed. According to the petitioner, the conditions contained in the lease deeds, the residential nature of the Housing Board colony, and the applicable master plan reveal that commercial activities cannot be carried out in the said area, which has been reserved for residential activities. 4 The State Government, upon receipt of the said complaint/representation of the petitioner, has specifically communicated vide its communication dated 15.10.2025, addressed to the respondent authorities, for taking necessary enquiry/examination and for submission of the report. However, till date, nothing has been done by the respective authorities. The petitioner has again made a representation dated 05.12.2025 before the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.), and the Executive Engineer of the C.G. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, requesting for a comprehensive enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner. The petitioner has also suggested certain aspects in order to arrive at a conclusion upon the enquiry and due verification of the original layout plan; however, the same has not been acted upon. Again, a communication dated 19.12.2025 has been made to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.), to take action upon the grievance raised by the petitioner, as till date the authorities have not paid heed to the aforesaid applications/representations made by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was left with no remedy except to approach this Court for a limited direction to direct the authorities concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner and to conduct an enquiry as directed by the communication order dated 15.10.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Sector Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of Shanker Nagar, Raipur were designated for residential 5 purposes, as such, no commercial or semi-commercial activities can be carried out in the aforesaid sectors. Since time and again the petitioner is agitating the said issue before the authorities concerned including respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein, however, this vital aspect has not been considered by the authorities concerned despite repeated communications made by the petitioner. He next submits that non-consideration of the matter, even after taking cognizance of the same, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once cognizance of the matter has been taken, the authorities concerned are required to conclude the same by passing a reasoned order. Vide letter dated 15.10.2025, directions have already been issued by the Housing and Environment Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, and as such, the same is required to be considered by the respondent authorities; however, till date, it has not been considered. The petitioner has raised a genuine issue before the concerned authorities which is required to be redressed; however, for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, the same has not been redressed till date. 4. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infringement of his personal, statutory, or fundamental rights. The grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to alleged unauthorized commercial activities and land-use violations by third parties in Shankar 6 Nagar, Raipur, which is essentially in the nature of a general grievance. It is submitted that such allegations do not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petition, in substance, is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, though filed as a writ petition, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass the procedure and requirements applicable to such proceedings. He also submits that that the grievance of the petitioner has already been considered by the competent authority. Upon receipt of the representation dated 03.10.2025, the Housing and Environment Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued communication dated 15.10.2025 to the concerned authorities for necessary enquiry and submission of a report. Therefore, the present petition is premature and no direction as sought by the petitioner is warranted. It is also submitted that seeking copies of internal communications, status reports, or departmental proceedings falls within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked as a mechanism for monitoring routine administrative correspondence. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 7/Municipal Corporation submits that the present petition, though filed seeking a direction for consideration of the representation, is not maintainable, as the petitioner has no statutory or legal right to seek such a direction. It is submitted that through the representation dated 05.12.2025, the 7 petitioner is seeking extensive information regarding layouts, permissions, alleged irregularities, violations of lease deeds, NOCs, master plans, and an enquiry into such issues, despite not being an affected or aggrieved person. Therefore, the petitioner lacks locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the proceedings are not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. He further submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Right to Information Act, 2005, having already invoked the said remedy. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the response, the remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the Act is available. Without availing the said statutory remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court; hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 8 places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 which reads as thus:- “9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury’s Laws of 8 England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, para 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488: (1974) 1 SCR 165]; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed [(1976) 1 SCC 671 : (1976) 3 SCR 58] and Ferris :Extraordinary Legal Remedies, para 198.)” He further relies on a 3 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 884 which reads as under:- “11.The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent." Further, recently a 3 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579 has held as follows:- 9 “30. It can thus be seen that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in such matters, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available. ... 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance." 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that since the petitioner has already filed the application before the authorities concerned and further since upon complaints as made by the petitioner, the authorities are doing the needful, as such without commenting on merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievance and in turn the authorities concerned are also directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to redress the grievance of the petitioner within some stipulated period. 8. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20.07.2026 13.08.2026. -- 14.08.2026